Charges levelled has to be proved by evidence.

N.V.Balasubramanian, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.13017 of 1994 dated 29.4.1998. According to the appellant, namely, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Limited, the first respondent was an Assistant Officer in charge of the Guest House of the appellant Company and certain charges were framed against him when he was working as a Supervisor of the Guest House belonging to the appellant. The Enquiry Officer, in the enquiry, has found that the charge Nos.1 and 2 were not proved, but however, held that the charges 3 and 4 were proved. The disciplinary authority, after giving opportunity to the first respondent, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer with reference to Charges 3 and 4 and terminated the services of the first respondent and the General Manager of the appellant company, on appeal, confirmed the same. The first respondent filed an application under section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority which was confirmed by the appellate authority as illegal and unjustified. The Labour Court held that the charges 3 and 4 were proved and the appellant was justified in terminating the services of the first respondent. However, the Labour Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages to the first respondent as he was working in the appellant company from 1983 to 1987. The first respondent challenged the order of Labour Court in W.P.No.13017 of 1994 on the file of this Court and a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and it is against the order of learned Judge, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are that the first respondent was appointed as a Trainee Caretaker in the appellant Guest House on 18.4.1983 and he was confirmed as Supervisor on 18.4.1984 and he was promoted as Assistant Officer with effect from 1.2.1985. The first respondent was transferred from the Guest House to Wood Yard (production department) on 18.12.1986 and the first respondent challenged the order of transfer by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.994 of 1987 on the file of this Court. On 9.1.1987, certain complaints were received against the first respondent and on the basis of the complaints, the first respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 11.2.1987. On 28.2.1987 a memo of charge was issued against the first respondent on the following allegations:

“ (i) Received commission of Rs.75/- every fortnight from Milk vendor.

(ii) Received 10% commission from Vegetable vendor on the value of Vegetables supplied by T.V.Somasundaram and allowed him to inflate bills.

(iii) Received commission of Rs.2/- per bottle from M.Ramasamy who supplied beer to guests.

(iv) Collected wages due to contract worker S.Chandrasekaran and misappropriated more than 50% of his wages.”

The first respondent gave his explanation to the charges on 2.3.1987 and a retired District Judge was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and he held the enquiry. In so far as the first charge is concerned, though in his chief-examination the complainant has stated that he preferred the complaint, he has not corroborated the averments made in the complaint and he has also stated that it was not a voluntary statement. As far as charge No.2 is concerned, the complainant himself was not examined. Hence, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges Nos.1 and 2 were not proved and the finding of the Enquiry Officer has become final.

3. In so far as the third charge is concerned, one Ramasamy was examined as M.W.3 and in his statement before the Enquiry Officer he has stated that he was running tourist taxies for the appellant company from the year 1983 and when driver was not available, he used to drive the vehicle and the taxies would be parked at the guest house. He has stated that he gave the complaint on 8.1.1987. Further, he has stated that he used to purchase